Our environment faces many problems, and some of them worsen over time, such as plastic pollution, air pollution, and global warming from fossil fuels. Therefore, it increasingly important to solve these problems by doing something that can reduce their negative effects. Environmental problem solving itself can be done at various scales. Some people think that environmental problems should be solved on a global scale, while others believe it is better to deal with them nationally. So, which one is better?
Those who agree that environmental problems should be resolved on a global scale argue that environmental problems, such as global warming, have a worldwide impact and need global attention to reduce their adverse effects on human life and the environment. To overcome it, an agreement between countries in the world is needed. The international organization, United Nations, can also function within it by identifying the problems and providing environmental alternatives or policies to which all countries must comply. By doing so, some people believe that handling environmental problems globally is more effective than nationally.
Examples of environmental problem solving on a global scale are the Kyoto Protocol and the Montreal Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement to reduce emissions and five other greenhouse gases, while the Montreal Protocol is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by eliminating the production of substances, which is believed to reduce the ozone layer.
However, the reason why some other people believe that it is better to tackle environmental problems nationally also makes sense. Each country may have a different mindset even in dealing with the same problem. It is due to differences in the causes and impacts of the problem. For example, deforestation in Indonesia is caused by forest fires and forest conversion to oil palm plantations and mining, while deforestation in the Amazon region, Brazil, is caused by illegal logging and illegal encroachment of forest land. Generally, both of them have the same impacts, but their main impacts are different. In Indonesia, deforestation triggers various natural disasters, such as landslides, floods, and drought. Meanwhile, deforestation in Brazil causes an increase in carbon emissions, in which Brazil's emissions were equivalent to 2. 175 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2019.
Every country also has different environmental or other problems, as well as their priorities. Therefore, they can independently formulate appropriate actions to deal with their problems. That is why some people think that solving environmental problems nationally is more efficient than globally.
Whether on a global or national scale, solving environmental problems should be carried out in an orderly and comprehensive manner. From my perspective, both are equally good to do depending on the environmental problem at hand. If a problem affects nearly all countries and has a broadly similar impact, then it is better to tackle it on a global scale. However, every country also has different environmental problems and occurs only on a national scale. So, it will be more efficient if handled nationally.
Our environment faces
many
problems
, and
some
of them worsen over time, such as plastic pollution, air pollution, and
global
warming from fossil fuels.
Therefore
,
it
increasingly
important
to solve these
problems
by doing something that can
reduce
their
negative
effects.
Environmental
problem
solving
itself can
be done
at various
scales
.
Some
people
think
that
environmental
problems
should
be solved
on a
global
scale
, while others believe it is better to deal with them
nationally
.
So
, which one is better?
Those who
agree
that
environmental
problems
should
be resolved
on a
global
scale
argue that
environmental
problems
, such as
global
warming, have a worldwide
impact
and need
global
attention to
reduce
their adverse effects on human life and the environment. To overcome it, an agreement between
countries
in the world
is needed
. The international organization, United Nations, can
also
function within it by identifying the
problems
and providing
environmental
alternatives or policies to which all
countries
must
comply. By doing
so
,
some
people
believe that handling
environmental
problems
globally is more effective than
nationally
.
Examples of
environmental
problem
solving
on a
global
scale
are the Kyoto
Protocol
and the Montreal
Protocol
. The Kyoto
Protocol
is an international agreement to
reduce
emissions and five
other
greenhouse gases, while the Montreal
Protocol
is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by eliminating the production of substances, which
is believed
to
reduce
the ozone layer.
However
, the reason why
some
other
people
believe that it is better to tackle
environmental
problems
nationally
also
makes
sense. Each
country
may have a
different
mindset even in dealing with the same
problem
. It is due to differences in the causes and
impacts
of the
problem
.
For example
,
deforestation
in Indonesia
is caused
by forest fires and forest conversion to oil palm plantations and mining, while
deforestation
in the Amazon region, Brazil,
is caused
by illegal logging and illegal encroachment of forest land.
Generally
, both of them have the same
impacts
,
but
their main
impacts
are
different
. In Indonesia,
deforestation
triggers various natural disasters, such as landslides, floods, and drought. Meanwhile,
deforestation
in Brazil causes an increase in carbon emissions, in which Brazil's emissions were equivalent to 2. 175 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2019.
Every
country
also
has
different
environmental
or
other
problems
,
as well
as their priorities.
Therefore
, they can
independently
formulate appropriate actions to deal with their
problems
.
That is
why
some
people
think
that
solving
environmental
problems
nationally
is more efficient than globally.
Whether on a
global
or national
scale
,
solving
environmental
problems
should
be carried
out in an orderly and comprehensive manner. From my perspective, both are
equally
good
to
do depending
on the
environmental
problem
at hand. If a
problem
affects
nearly
all
countries
and has a
broadly
similar
impact
, then it is better to tackle it on a
global
scale
.
However
, every
country
also
has
different
environmental
problems
and occurs
only
on a national
scale
.
So
, it will be more efficient if handled
nationally
.